There is no evidence it occurred, no proposed mechanisms that can withstand any scientific scrutiny, and no evidence that it exists today or is even possible. It is a conclusion based on a belief in materialism. That is religion, not science.

Do you have a short memory springer? I already posted mechanisms that might be employed, and why the evidence you look for(living proof) do not exist. The links I posted more than adequately explain why it would be possible. Don't repeat yourself.

Living one day at a time; Enjoying one moment at a time; Accepting hardships as the pathway to peace; ~Niebuhr

There is no evidence it occurred, no proposed mechanisms that can withstand any scientific scrutiny, and no evidence that it exists today or is even possible. It is a conclusion based on a belief in materialism. That is religion, not science.

Do you have a short memory springer? I already posted mechanisms that might be employed, and why the evidence you look for(living proof) do not exist. The links I posted more than adequately explain why it would be possible. Don't repeat yourself.

The links you provided did not explain how abiogenesis is possible. No specific mechanisms were even postulated. If so, what are they?

Springer wrote:The conclusion that protobionts existed is based only on the presumption that evolution is the answer and that ID is non-existent. It's not based on aniy evidence that they are biologically possible or that they could form through natural processes.

Excerpt describing the formation of the "membrane" of the protobiont.

Keto-enol tautomerism is a widely distributed state of
substances that possess a carbonyl group. Usually,
tautomeric equilibrium is strongly shifted toward the
keto-tautomer. Enolization of the lipid ester carbonyl
and substitution of two protons in lipid molecules by a
magnesium ion is a highly unlikely, yet not prohibited by
the laws of chemistry, event. (If that event was a trivial
one and could be easily simulated in a laboratory, I
would not be now writing this paper, as the problem of
the origin of life would have been solved long ago.)
http://www.google.com/url?sa=U&start=5& ... pdf&e=9797

Many other different models, none of which are impossible. If you know enough molecular chemistry to prove this argument false, be my guest.

[quote]

Living one day at a time; Enjoying one moment at a time; Accepting hardships as the pathway to peace; ~Niebuhr

Keto-enol tautomerism is a widely distributed state ofsubstances that possess a carbonyl group. Usually,tautomeric equilibrium is strongly shifted toward theketo-tautomer. Enolization of the lipid ester carbonyland substitution of two protons in lipid molecules by amagnesium ion is a highly unlikely, yet not prohibited bythe laws of chemistry, event. (If that event was a trivialone and could be easily simulated in a laboratory, Iwould not be now writing this paper, as the problem ofthe origin of life would have been solved long ago.)http://www.google.com/url?sa=U&start=5& ... pdf&e=9797

The argument is worthless. He mentions only one step in the formation of a cell membrane and concedes that it's "highly improbable" but not prohibited by laws of chemistry. How improbable? You think that if you can show that a single step is within the grasp of possibility that you've provided any evidence that life can arise spontaneously from non-life?

Many other different models, none of which are impossible. If you know enough molecular chemistry to prove this argument false, be my guest.

You're exhibiting classic evolutionary arguments of desperation... attempting to throw up a smokescreen as a substitute for intelligent dialogue.

You also said that unknown mechanisms were invoked. None have been according to that paper. And again you ask for "evidence"- the only kind that will satisfy you is living proof.
Well as the author write, "If that event was a trivial one and could be easily simulated in a laboratory, I would not be now writing this paper, as the problem of the origin of life would have been solved long ago."
Springer, you said it was impossible. That's clearly false.

You're exhibiting classic evolutionary arguments of desperation... attempting to throw up a smokescreen as a substitute for intelligent dialogue.

Calling it a smokescreen doesn't help your arguments any. If you're really interested in knowing how it may have formed you would have looked up these papers long ago. Why don't you do some research and see how many papers actually invoke these unknown mechanisms that you speak of?

Argument from Incredulity-

"This is unexplainable" (meaning, of course, "I can't explain this"). This is the argument from personal incredulity, and it contains the unwritten assumption that the speaker is a superhuman genius who should be able to understand everything unless he is missing an assumption. So the superhuman genius concludes that some assumption (God, aliens, psi, whatever) is true.

Living one day at a time; Enjoying one moment at a time; Accepting hardships as the pathway to peace; ~Niebuhr

You also said that unknown mechanisms were invoked. None have been according to that paper. And again you ask for "evidence"- the only kind that will satisfy you is living proof.

No, I'm asking for evidence, and you haven't provided any.

Well as the author write, "If that event was a trivial one and could be easily simulated in a laboratory, I would not be now writing this paper, as the problem of the origin of life would have been solved long ago."Springer, you said it was impossible. That's clearly false.

There is no evidence that abiogenesis is possible... not in that paper you sited or in any reported research that I've come across. You can only speak in vague generalizations and refuse to give me any specific reason to believe abiogenesis is possible.

Calling it a smokescreen doesn't help your arguments any. If you're really interested in knowing how it may have formed you would have looked up these papers long ago. Why don't you do some research and see how many papers actually invoke these unknown mechanisms that you speak of?

I've read multiple articles on abiogenesis and have found no evidence that it's possible. If you disagree, then specifically state what mechanisms could have been in operation to allow its occurance. Simply stating that there are articles out there that disprove what I'm saying is not an argument. You need to specifically state what principles of science are involved to allow life to evolve from non-life.

Argument from Incredulity-

It has become popular for evolutionists to assault their oponents with the "incredulity" argument... as if it's a fault to disbelieve something that makes no scientific sense.

"This is unexplainable" (meaning, of course, "I can't explain this"). This is the argument from personal incredulity, and it contains the unwritten assumption that the speaker is a superhuman genius who should be able to understand everything unless he is missing an assumption. So the superhuman genius concludes that some assumption (God, aliens, psi, whatever) is true.

You seem to be guilty of personal incredulity. You will apparently believe that anything is possible with evolution, as long as it doesn't invoke the necessity of intelligent design.

The reason "scientists" don't address ID is because, as you just stated, they're seeking natural explanations. They assume that evolution can provide all the answers. There is nothing "unscientific" about ID. What is "scientific" about theories of abiogenesis? There is no evidence it occurred, no proposed mechanisms that can withstand any scientific scrutiny, and no evidence that it exists today or is even possible. It is a conclusion based on a belief in materialism. That is religion, not science.

ID is unscientific because it cannot be tested. Show me one testable hypothesis that ID can produce and I'll concede that point. That's all I want, one, single, testable hypothesis derived from ID. Show me that and I'll admit to being wrong.

As for abiogenesis, we have already beaten this horse to death. Biological chemicals could've occurred naturally on the early earth, and RNA-based life forms could've evolved first before DNA came along. I would repeat all the details if I wasn't so tired of repeating myself.

You have incorrectly concluded that a belief in ID is not a conclusion based on evidence, but a default position.

No, I believe ID is a belief based on religious fundamentalism, and an attempt to disguise that theology by taking the word "God" out of it. ID is nothing more than old-fashioned creationism in a new suit.

That is a statement of your theology, not mine. I don't believe God can do anything. ID does not propose that a creator is not bound by laws

Let me rephrase. ID invokes supernatural forces to explain that which we cannot explain naturally. These forces may be omnipotent or not; we really don't know what's possible if such phenomena occur on a regular basis. Anything might be possible, and so there's no testable hypothesis or any way in which it can be falsified. No matter what happens, we can say it's because God made it happen. That might be true but it's not falsifiable and so isn't science. I myself believe very strongly in God, but that doesn't mean I am naive enough to call my faith science.

What's worthless as science is the pre-drawn conclusion that regardless of my inability to explain a mechanism, evolution must have produced it.

No, I don't believe evolution simply because there's no other alternative. I could, I suppose, say that evolution is rubbish and all the "evidence" for it was put there by God to trick us and thereby test our faith. Does anyone else realize how rediculous that sounds? I believe evolution because it works and is consistent with the evidence. If you can come up with a better theory that does that, I'll listen.

On the topic of abiogenesis... Observation: a man pulls a rabbit out of a hat. Conclusion 1 (evolution): the rabbit just "appeared" [magic] Conclulsion 2: (ID) an intelligent source put it there [science]

Here's my version of that analogy:
Species appears on earth.
Conclusion 1: It magically appeared in a puff of smoke. (ID/creationism)
Conclusion 2: It evolved due to selective pressure on the traits that differentiate it from its ancestor. (science)

ID is unscientific because it cannot be tested. Show me one testable hypothesis that ID can produce and I'll concede that point. That's all I want, one, single, testable hypothesis derived from ID. Show me that and I'll admit to being wrong.

The belief that ID must be falsifiable to be science is a recent, arbitrary definition. There is no law that states something must be falsifiable to be science. That is a philosophical statement. I will agree that ID is not falsifiable. Evolution is likewise not falsifiable. Every single problem is addressed as, "we don't have all the answers, but somewhat it will be explained within the evolutionary paradigm." Irreducible complexity is dismissed as a non-issue because we skeptics are "incredulous". You seem to think that it's scientific to believe in something even if it can't be explained scientifically. If you disagree that the general theory of evolution (not a specific mechanism), is not falsifiable, please give an example of how it could be proven false.

As for abiogenesis, we have already beaten this horse to death. Biological chemicals could've occurred naturally on the early earth, and RNA-based life forms could've evolved first before DNA came along. I would repeat all the details if I wasn't so tired of repeating myself.

You have not beaten the horse to death, you have dodged the issue to death. Stating that RNA-based life came first doesn't prove anything. You have provided no details as to how RNA could self organize. If you proposed that it occurred by random molecular interactions, then you are dealing with the impossible. If you propose that occurred in steps through natural selection, then you need to propose how that is possible, because it's never been observed.

No, I believe ID is a belief based on religious fundamentalism, and an attempt to disguise that theology by taking the word "God" out of it. ID is nothing more than old-fashioned creationism in a new suit.

That is inaccurate stereotyping. I believe in God, as you do. You don't see any reason why God couldn't have used evolution. I agree. I do not believe He used evolution because I don't see the evidence that He did. What I see is filtered evidence used to defend a preconceived ideology of materialism.

Let me rephrase. ID invokes supernatural forces to explain that which we cannot explain naturally. These forces may be omnipotent or not; we really don't know what's possible if such phenomena occur on a regular basis. Anything might be possible, and so there's no testable hypothesis or any way in which it can be falsified. No matter what happens, we can say it's because God made it happen. That might be true but it's not falsifiable and so isn't science. I myself believe very strongly in God, but that doesn't mean I am naive enough to call my faith science.

Evolution relies on supernatural forces. One, for example, is natural selection. YOu cannot explain to me how a feather evolved by natural selection. In your mind, it just somehow happened. You cannot explain how single cell life evolved from molecules. You think it happened. That's you're point of view that you've acquired for whatever reason. The reason is not scientific observation, because nothing in science tells us that life can spontaneously form.

What's worthless as science is the pre-drawn conclusion that regardless of my inability to explain a mechanism, evolution must have produced it.

No, I don't believe evolution simply because there's no other alternative. I could, I suppose, say that evolution is rubbish and all the "evidence" for it was put there by God to trick us and thereby test our faith. Does anyone else realize how rediculous that sounds? I believe evolution because it works and is consistent with the evidence. If you can come up with a better theory that does that, I'll listen.

Nature does not proclaim gradualism... it proclaims intelligent design. The fossil record is discontinuous. Living species are not connected by gradual intermediates. There are no living transitional species of the more than two million plants and animals. That is not predicted by evolution. The illusion that the evidence points to Darwinism is only because of 150 years of rationalization of the facts.

Here's my version of that analogy:Species appears on earth.Conclusion 1: It magically appeared in a puff of smoke. (ID/creationism)Conclusion 2: It evolved due to selective pressure on the traits that differentiate it from its ancestor. (science)

No one is saying that creation occurred in a puff of smoke. Evolutionists are the ones more closely alligned with that thinking (big bang)

P.S.: My beliefs, even religious, are based on observation as well as faith. Why do you believe in God if you see no evidence of His existence in nature? To me that is a paradox.

Ah,
we were created "magically"with as you say "A puff of smoke"
or were we magically sprung from nothing that self generated.
or generated from a self made energy source?

"How far you go in life depends on your being tender with the young, compassionate with the aged, sympathetic with the striving and tolerant of the weak and strong. Because someday in life you will have been all of these".

mithrilhack wrote:@PatrickAgreed, it was fun and even enlightening at first to see what some aspects of evolution can be further investigated. Springer brought up some questions that I have never really considered before and made me actually research and find out more about biology, physics and chemistry. But when same topics which have already been discussed and settled are brought up again and again and again, it just gets tedious and annoying.

@SpringerWe've already discussed topics such as falsifiabilty, scientific-ness of ID, reliabilty, theory vs assumptions vs conclusion, calculation methods, fossil records etc....more than enough times(i.e. more than 3 times in some case) in threads spread all over the board. Unless you have something actually new AND scientific to post, don't.

Thats nice when your a moderator and you know all these discussions
but this is a particular question here
if its not open to discuss because you have discussed it all over other threads then why is it open?

just trying to understand
I have yet to see any new information either.

"How far you go in life depends on your being tender with the young, compassionate with the aged, sympathetic with the striving and tolerant of the weak and strong. Because someday in life you will have been all of these".

"How far you go in life depends on your being tender with the young, compassionate with the aged, sympathetic with the striving and tolerant of the weak and strong. Because someday in life you will have been all of these".